Liam Neeson is the voice of Aslan the Lion in the new 3-D Narnia film, Voyage of the Dawn Treader. He's got a great voice for the role. Neeson is even from the North of Ireland, the same area from which C.S. Lewis, the beloved Christian author of The Chronicles of Narnia hailed.

But actor Neeson is facing hail of a different kind -- a hail of criticism. That's because of his politically correct comments about Aslan. Neeson told interviewers that Aslan should not be interpreted narrowly and exclusively as an allegory of Jesus Christ. Aslan might also be seen, Neeson said, as representing other religious leaders, such as Mohammed or Buddha.

This is the reason that Hollywood so often is linked to the Looney Left!

C.S. Lewis' devoted secretary is also a trustee of the Lewis estate. Walter Hooper was shocked by Neeson's absurd statements. Lewis' work, he said, "has nothing whatever to do with Islam. The whole story is about Christ. Lewis could not have been clearer."

William Oddie is the former editor of the Catholic Herald. A lifelong fan of C.S. Lewis, Oddie calls Neeson's craven effort "a betrayal of Lewis' intention and a shameful distortion" of Lewis' whole body of work. Oddie sharpened his criticism: "Aslan is clearly established from the very beginning of the [series] as a Christ figure. I can't believe that Liam Neeson is so stupid as not to know [this]."

Liam Neeson is certainly not stupid. He is, unfortunately, a dhimmicrat. A dhimmicrat is one who uses his social, cultural, or political position to smooth the path of sharia, the law they have in Saudi Arabia. Prince Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury are prime examples of dhimmicrats. The Prince of Wales has argued publicly for Westerners to embrace Islam's values in order to save the planet from global warming. The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks Britain should permit sharia in ever wider areas to accommodate Islam's strictures on family life. That means polygamy. That means arranged marriages. That means the legal subordination of women.

In this case, however, Liam Neeson's fawning attempts may prove dangerous. He did, after all, publicly compare Mohammed to an animal. No matter that it's an allegory. It can still be taken up by Muslim rioters as "blasphemy."

Is this far-fetched? Not at all. Time Magazine carried the story of a British schoolteacher who was threatened with death in Sudan in 2007. Her crime? She asked her 6- and 7-year old students in the capital city of Khartoum what name they wanted to give to the classroom mascot, a nice, cuddly Teddy bear. "Mohammed," cried the muppets in unison. So, with respect for local sensibilities, the 54-year old Gillian Gibbons let the children have their wish. Not so fast. Local mullahs were outraged.

The school's principal -- who presided over a school that had been in Sudan since colonial days -- tried to intercede. "Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam. We tried to reason with them [the police] but they were coming under strong pressure from Islamic courts. There were men with big beards asking where she was and saying they wanted to kill her." Miss Gibbons got a fatwa laid upon her.

So this is the rule of law that Prince Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury want to see more of in Britain? So this is the sentiment that Liam Neeson is trying to appease?

George Weigel, famed American biographer of Pope John Paul II, has called for "no more appeasement of radical Islam." Weigel points to the recent murders of more than 50 Catholics in a jihadist attack on Our Lady of Salvation cathedral in Baghdad and calls for condemnation from this still silent administration in Washington.

For all the bowing low before despots, for all the "outreach" to what the Obama administration calls "the Muslim world," what we are seeing is contempt for our faith traditions. Murderous jihadists for years have demanded a West Bank judenrein -- that is, a Palestinian state ethnically cleansed of Jews. This administration, for unknown reasons, is collaborating with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to bring about this state. It is even giving the PLO hundreds of millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Now, jihadists are trying to eradicate Christian communities in the Mideast that have existed there since the dawn of the Christian era. This must be resisted.

Liam Neeson may escape the fate of Miss Gibbons who, at last report, had not been beheaded. But he should note what all of us should note: Jihadists cannot be appeased.

Osama bin Laden himself said it: People in Muslim-dominant countries line up behind the "strong horse." Liam Neeson and the dhimmicrats must stop making us appear to be the weak horse.

America must be that strong horse if we want to survive. (Say, didn't Osama compare us to an animal?)

Here's the thing, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, it already has overtaken the Christian/Catholic population. If this keeps up in say in the next 100 years or so, the entire world will be entirely Muslim. It already has taken more than a foothold in European countries.

Live in constant fear under the Sharia law whereas just about anything can get you executed if you're not careful? You won't be allowed to change religion when converted, etc.

Slowly, already two Muslims in the House of Congress have already been elected in office here in the States (None in Senate....yet!).

Keith Ellison got elected to the US House of Representatives as the first Muslim. Keith Ellison was a Democratic state senator from Minnesota and was elected from the fifth congressional district.

American Muslim community is elated at the election of another Muslim to the US Congress. On March 11, Indiana voters elected Andre Carson to the Congress. He became the second Muslim chosen to in the U.S. history.

There's already elected officials in Britain that are Muslim.

My Pastor had a visitor from Afghanistan that runs underground churches there, who told us that the Muslims already has a 100 year plan in motion to convert the United States into a Muslim country and the only way to do it is to move to America, have LOTS of babies, populate their people all over the country and eventually get them all elected into offices across the board. Then the takeover will then be complete once they start passing bills with Islamic Laws in place. (I'll prolly be dead and long gone before that happens)

This thread could very easily take us down a religious discussion, which, isn't allowed here in AD.

__________________"There comes a time in your life, when you walk away from all the drama and people who create it. You surround yourself with people who make you laugh. Forget the bad, and focus on the good. Love the people who treat you right, pray for the ones who don't. Life is too short to be anything but happy. Falling down is a part of life, getting back up is living."

Too ridiculas to even warrant a reply. Especially the labeling as someone as "left" simply because they have tolerance for different belief systems. I'm gonna stop now before I say something insulting.

So tempted to pull examples from the Balkans, Africa and Central America to show Islam isn't the only "barbaric" religion with insanely religious laws that won't see the light of day in the United States.

Instead of attacking the religion as a whole, maybe analyze the regions? And find out why certain sects and groups behave in such a way?

Islam in Canada is not even remotely the same as Islam in the violate Middle East. Islam in surrounding Central Asian countries such as Kazakhstan are not the same as Iran, Chechnya and Afghanistan... all one has to do is speak to the Islamic Persian and Afghan refugees who fled the prosecuting government in their homelands and seeked asylum within Canadian and American borders.

If you have to fear Islamic fundamentalism, then you must fear Christian fundamentalism as well. Why? They have the same root causes, just different regions. European Muslims embraced Islamic fundamentalism often in poverty, just like how improvised Americans and Canadians embraced Christian fundamentalism. Extreme situations tend to call for radical interpretations.

See the type of religion isn't the danger here, the danger lies in the unstable environment people live in such as war zones or poverty zones.

__________________
"It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you donít understand it." - Richard Freynman

...If you have to fear Islamic fundamentalism, then you must fear Christian fundamentalism as well. Why? They have the same root causes, just different regions.

What are "the same root causes" of Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism?

Quote:

European Muslims embraced Islamic fundamentalism often in poverty, just like how improvised Americans and Canadians embraced Christian fundamentalism. Extreme situations tend to call for radical interpretations.

See the type of religion isn't the danger here, the danger lies in the unstable environment people live in such as war zones or poverty zones.

Too ridiculas to even warrant a reply. Especially the labeling as someone as "left" simply because they have tolerance for different belief systems. I'm gonna stop now before I say something insulting.

X2 What a complete load of garbage. Completely fabricated argument from top to bottom.

...If you have to fear Islamic fundamentalism, then you must fear Christian fundamentalism as well. Why? They have the same root causes, just different regions.

What are "the same root causes" of Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism?

Quote:

European Muslims embraced Islamic fundamentalism often in poverty, just like how improvised Americans and Canadians embraced Christian fundamentalism. Extreme situations tend to call for radical interpretations.

See the type of religion isn't the danger here, the danger lies in the unstable environment people live in such as war zones or poverty zones.

We covered this in "Religions of the World" and in "Withcraft and the Occult" in university. Standard stuff in lectures and in textbooks to understand why certain movements are appealing to people. Fundamentalism in the South and Western Canada gained its initial appeal and base among those who lived under the poverty line. No different from Muslims who live under the poverty line in Europe turning to more literal interpretations of the texts. You see similar movements in poor countries as well, Christians and Muslims alike.

__________________
"It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you donít understand it." - Richard Freynman

Thanks for the link but it doesn't answer my question. It's just a list of random pdf's.

It doesn't answer the question I asked about your original statement, "If you have to fear Islamic fundamentalism, then you must fear Christian fundamentalism as well. Why? They have the same root causes, just different regions."

What same root causes do the two religions have that should cause us to fear them equally? Are you talking about the roots of those religions from centuries ago, or for current followers? What things about those "roots" are fearsome?

You must have some reason for making that statement other than a search engine list.

Quote:

We covered this in "Religions of the World" and in "Withcraft and the Occult" in university. Standard stuff in lectures and in textbooks to understand why certain movements are appealing to people. Fundamentalism in the South and Western Canada gained its initial appeal and base among those who lived under the poverty line. No different from Muslims who live under the poverty line in Europe turning to more literal interpretations of the texts. You see similar movements in poor countries as well, Christians and Muslims alike.

Religions start out with sets of fundamental beliefs. As time goes by, groups deviate from the fundamentals. Fundamentalist Christians are those who have stuck with the fundamentals of the faith since the beginning, almost 2,000 years ago. We've always turned to the literal interpretations of the texts. It's denominations who have added and subtracted from the original texts and doctrines who have either moved away from the fundamentals of their faith, or created new beliefs.

I can't speak for the followers of Islam. Maybe you can ask some of those strict, wealthy Saudis about their fundamental beliefs.

Sociologically, SES is a big factor in fundamentalism. When one is living in poverty and has no opportunity to change their situation, they have to find a way to justify that and give their existence some sort of meaning and their person some sort of value. That is often accomplished through fundamental belief systems. Anything lacking in their existence is not their fault, the their destiny determined by their god's will. They have been chosen for this difficult life, and therefore, their situation not only becomes good, but desirable. Because these beliefs are the only thing that justifies their existence, they become fanatical about their belief system being the only true and good belief system. Anyone who believes differently is a threat to the justification they use to define their existence. And they defend it to the degree that it often creates violence. Violence that is justfied by the fact that they are acting out their god's will.

Sociologically, SES is a big factor in fundamentalism. When one is living in poverty and has no opportunity to change their situation, they have to find a way to justify that and give their existence some sort of meaning and their person some sort of value. That is often accomplished through fundamental belief systems. Anything lacking in their existence is not their fault, the their destiny determined by their god's will. They have been chosen for this difficult life, and therefore, their situation not only becomes good, but desirable. Because these beliefs are the only thing that justifies their existence, they become fanatical about their belief system being the only true and good belief system. Anyone who believes differently is a threat to the justification they use to define their existence. And they defend it to the degree that it often creates violence. Violence that is justfied by the fact that they are acting out their god's will.

Well, there is a link between the status of a community and the economy. The economy itself does influence the outcome of a community.

While crime occurs in all classes of communities, but people should be aware that poverty does contributes to the crime rate. For instance, many store robberies are committed by people who are below the poverty line. People get mugged on a daily basis in areas where everything is rundown and below the poverty line. Desperate times call for desperate measures. This is where people start taking advantage of them. They know these people are desperate to do anything to have a better life. So it's remarkably easy to convert people over to a faith-based system that was heavily modified for sinister purposes.

Have you ever noticed how if they fill a neighbourhood with affordable housing, the crime rate goes up? If a neighbourhood varied in economic statuses, you will find that the crime rate is low. There is nothing wrong with affordable housing as long they limit it to a few per neighourhood rather than dozens and dozens. People with previous records and involved with selling drugs have a tendency to move in areas with nothing but affordable housing due to the low costs. This is something not many people want to hear, but it's the truth.

It's not ideal to have a neighbourhood with nothing but below the poverty households. It will contribute to a higher crime rate compared to the other neighourhoods. Poverty does a lot of harm to the people involved rendering them vulnerable and susceptible to evil.

It has some influence but it's not the main influence. If it were, then all poor people would be criminals, and all wealthy people would be benevolent angels. We know that's not true.

We all know that.

However, poverty does play a role in increasing the crime rate. If you were to read some studies and such. You will see that in the past, where poverty was rampant, the crime was too. Children of parents who were stricken by poverty resorted to stealing, mugging, breaking into and more because they were hungry and penniless.

It has some influence but it's not the main influence. If it were, then all poor people would be criminals, and all wealthy people would be benevolent angels. We know that's not true.

Lower SES is not the only factor involved in criminal behavior, either. For that to be true, we would have to say that anyone who lives in poverty has the exact same environmental influence, the exact same personality profile, and the exact same genetic make-up.

However, poverty does play a role in increasing the crime rate. If you were to read some studies and such. You will see that in the past, where poverty was rampant, the crime was too. Children of parents who were stricken by poverty resorted to stealing, mugging, breaking into and more because they were hungry and penniless.

But not all poor people do that, even when they are in the same or even worse dire situations.

Also, crime by well-to-do people is increasing.

Poverty is not the main factor for increasing crime. It might influence the mode and location of crime but it doesn't create criminals.

Many crimes, especially of violence and cruelty, have nothing to do with poverty.

But, as I posted, that should be stuff for a new thread.

BTW, just because I don't agree with "studies and such" doesn't mean that I'm not aware of them.

But not all poor people do that, even when they are in the same or even worse dire situations.

Did I say that? No. Only that it contributes to it. I was below poverty at one point in my life and I never committed a crime. However, I grew up in a decent and nice neighbourhood that was not rampant with poverty.

Quote:

Also, crime by well-to-do people is increasing.

But do they rob 7-11 stores? Mug people? The crimes by well-to-do people are often more sophisticated. For instance, defrauding clients. The people stricken by poverty resort to petty theft, robberies and more which doesn't reward them anything but a prison sentence.

Quote:

Poverty is not the main factor for increasing crime. It might influence the mode and location of crime but it doesn't create criminals.

Did I say that? No. Only that it contributes to it. I was below poverty at one point in my life and I never committed a crime. However, I grew up in a decent and nice neighbourhood that was not rampant with poverty.

But do they rob 7-11 stores? Mug people? The crimes by well-to-do people are often more sophisticated. For instance, defrauding clients. The people stricken by poverty resort to petty theft, robberies and more which doesn't reward them anything but a prison sentence.

It does make a difference, whether people want to believe it or not.

And white collar crime actually does much more harm than blue collar crime because of the vast number of people one act affects. And you can bet your bippy that higher SES makes their prison sentence much shorter.